ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Religion & drink driving

Go to page

LE

Common recurring theme - Someone attempts / carries out an atrocity in the name of Islam. Everybody mounts the outrage bus and gets all worked up. People who like to consider themselves as tolerant quickly point out it's only a very small minority of extremists etc etc.

Where does the moral high ground actually lie though?

I have no idea of the stats and I guess it's unquantifiable but - I'd hazard a guess that only a tiny proportion of drink drivers are actually involved in accidents. It is fact though that drink drivers do cause accidents. We have no qualms about castigating ALL drink drivers, regardless of whether they are involved in accidents or are merely caught over the limit.

Sven & Ashie will quickly point out something about Irish terrorism or some obscure Christian sect's antics in the deep south of the USA. That is like comparing apples to Oranges though as they do not represent a growing global school of thought.

We turned down the squelch on our tolerance of drink driving / gun ownership and a whole host of other things. Is it not time to apply the same logic to ALL religions as a whole with regards to profiling at airports, visa control and various other things?

LE

It does in terms of how we tolerate differing levels of both.
It's an analogy - a poorly presented one maybe but I think it still stands. Maybe someone more verbose than I could pose it better or rip it to shreds?

LE

That is basically what I'm getting at. We have no qualms with zero tolerance or pointing the finger at many other issues, why should religion be exempt when it is fact that it's the root of many evils?

I thought they already did, that's how we get these watch lists, there will no doubt be many who can find quotes on asian and black guys getting repeatedly stopped and searched - I wonder why that would be? If a large part of UK gun crime is caused by young black men, then it stands to reason that young black men will be stopped more often to try and stamp down on it. Similarly asian men (especially with back packs!).

I used to work with a Sihk scientist. Wouldn't have guessed he was a Sihk, it just came up in conversation, he didn't wear a turban or a top knot. Following the 7/7 attack he got a T-shirt with 'Don't Freak, I'm a Sihk' printed on it.

LE

Exactly Bovvy. The question I pose is where should the lines be drawn or should they be re-drawn? It's already been considered about restricting new drivers in their choice of car etc. At what point does careful control become intolerance?

ADC

Drink driving, the castigation and the link to death is to stop drink driving being socially acceptable. If you look at the late sixties/early seventies, almost everyone would have a couple of drinks and drive. The way to convince people that they shouldn't drink and drive is to make them aware of the possible consequences and make it socially unacceptable to drink and drive.
You cannot do the same with religion because being religious does not put people at risk any more than having a driving licence makes you a drunk driver and puts people at risk. I was given short shrift the other day by a Moslem friend because I had not watched the Queen's speech. He finds it unacceptable that any Englishman should not listen to his Queen, he also believes that all immigrants should learn and speak English and feels that anyone voting Labour should be tied to a lamp post and flogged. His parents are from Pakistan but he was born in Leeds. He thinks the worst thing and the biggest sell out Yorkshire ever made was relaxing the rule about playing Cricket for Yorkshire and can't stand 'foreigners' (which to him means anyone not born in Yorkshire) playing cricket for his beloved Yorkshire. The only time he ever supports Pakistan is when they're playing the Windies and I think he mainly does that to annoy a mutual mate who's Jamaican.
He would defend Whet's right to live because he's a Yorkshireman but would have him tarred and feathered for his political views.

I thought they already did, that's how we get these watch lists, there will no doubt be many who can find quotes on asian and black guys getting repeatedly stopped and searched - I wonder why that would be? If a large part of UK gun crime is caused by young black men, then it stands to reason that young black men will be stopped more often to try and stamp down on it. Similarly asian men (especially with back packs!).

Perhaps I should have been more specific by asking: Is it ethical for the authorities to employ profiling along ethnic and religious lines.

Furthermore, I was under the impression that the policy is currently a blanket one; that is, people are randomly chosen for stop, search and questioning at UK airports irrespective of ethnicity, religion, age or gender. My understanding is that 'watch lists' are compiled from intelligence already gathered.

ADC

Exactly Bovvy. The question I pose is where should the lines be drawn or should they be re-drawn? It's already been considered about restricting new drivers in their choice of car etc. At what point does careful control become intolerance?

We, as a society, should work hard to prevent radicalisation. That is we need to look at living conditions and future prospects for those living in inner cities or all nationalities and religions. There are many disaffected young white people who are drawn to what they see as an answer to their problems or at least an outlet to their pent-up anger and hatred. It's no coincidence that most of the world's greatest boxers have come from the most deprived backgrounds, they have the most pent up rage and the greatest desire to remove themselves from their surroundings. Control radicalism not Islam. Islam just provides a convenient rallying call for the disaffected, much like the IRA provided a purpose and a rallying call for disaffected Catholic youths from all over.

LE

I accept what you say Mark, very valid. Should religious belief be therefore exempt from being considered in any form of judgment on the person though?

Drivers who drink do not represent a global school of thoutght, or indeed a way of life.

Dawkins commented that ALL religion is basically guilt, but with different holidays. He also compared religion to something irrational that clouds logical judgment and reasoning abilities. Should people who are overtly religious be considered to be more unreasonable than those who are not?

Would you employ or trust somebody with your kids who who firmly believed Harry Potter was a saviour and anybody who did not buy the books should be castigated?

War Hero

Dawkins commented that ALL religion is basically guilt, but with different holidays. He also compared religion to something irrational that clouds logical judgment and reasoning abilities. Should people who are overtly religious be considered to be more unreasonable than those who are not?

An interesting question is: is morality determined in the individual through objective reasoning or by subjective, socially driven inferences and 'feelings'? If it's the latter, who is to argue that subjective religious inferences are any better or worse than subjective secular inferences?

ADC

I accept what you say Mark, very valid. Should religious belief be therefore exempt from being considered in any form of judgment on the person though?

Personally I always think that people with a modicum of religion are probably better members of society because most religions have a great deal of morality in them. Islam is no exception as practised by the majority.

Drivers who drink do not represent a global school of thoutght, or indeed a way of life.

They don't now because attitudes have changed but there used to be a school of thought that drinking and driving was perfectly acceptable but then there were far less cars on the road and young men generally couldn't afford cars.

Dawkins commented that ALL religion is basically guilt, but with different holidays. He also compared religion to something irrational that clouds logical judgment and reasoning abilities. Should people who are overtly religious be considered to be more unreasonable than those who are not?

Not overtly religious per ce but those who are intolerant to others then yes I feel they are more unreasonable than the norm. You only have to talk to some Born-Again Christians to discern that!

Would you employ or trust somebody with your kids who who firmly believed Harry Potter was a saviour and anybody who did not buy the books should be castigated?

I would have no problem with my children being cared for by anyone as long as they did not try to convert my children to that religion. Exposure to other beliefs can only benefit understanding and tolerance.

It is not the religion that has caused the problem it is whatever has caused the person to become marginalised, radicalised and disaffected. In fact there are many Christians who have become radicalised then drifted towards radical (extreme) Islam in a move to find an 'identity' and an outlet for their emotion. In a lot of cases Islam is the excuse, not the prime motivator. Take a look at animal rights terrorism, that surely has to be someone who is desperate to commit violent acts desperately looking to 'legitimise' their aims.

LE

Mark, I agree that religion instills morality in many cases but morality is very subjective. What is moralistic for one is an outrage for another. Should people who use religion as a formulation for moral judgment be viewed on an equal footing as those who do not?

I would have no problem with my children being cared for by anyone as long as they did not try to convert my children to that religion. Exposure to other beliefs can only benefit understanding and tolerance.

Thats illogical. if you were tolerant of their beliefs then surely it follows you would have no qualms with them converting your children? Its rather like saying you'd have no qualms with paedophiles providing they never carried out their desires.

ADC

Mark, I agree that religion instills morality in many cases but morality is very subjective. What is moralistic for one is an outrage for another. Should people who use religion as a formulation for moral judgment be viewed on an equal footing as those who do not?

That depends on the judgement. If someone makes a sound moral judgement there are many factors that could and should have been taken into account. Most feel that you should not steal, whether that belief is derived from religion or more secular means matters not in the great scheme of things, the important thing is that you don't steal. Religion provides one possible framework for social integration but it doesn't provide the only framework. Philosophers will tell you there are many, non-religious paths to enlightenment.
If someone is kind and generous then it matters not how they come about their disposition and a kind and generous Moslem is no better or worse that an Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Jedi or Atheist.